Faculty Bibliography

AIM:The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

BACKGROUND:ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy. METHODS:In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index). RESULTS:Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS:In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

BACKGROUND:Patients with significant (≥50%) left main disease (LMD) have a high risk of cardiovascular events, and guidelines recommend revascularization to improve survival. However, the impact of intermediate LMD (stenosis, 25%-49%) on outcomes is unclear. METHODS:Randomized ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline were categorized into those with (25%-49%) and without (<25%) intermediate LMD. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The primary quality of life outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score. RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS:In the ISCHEMIA trial, there was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment benefit from an invasive strategy regardless of intermediate LMD status except for a greater absolute risk reduction in nonprocedural MI with invasive management in those with intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI, reduced nonprocedural MI, and improved angina-related quality of life. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

BACKGROUND:for predicting major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and all-cause mortality in kidney transplant candidates. METHODS:was defined as; normal >0.80 and abnormal ≤0.80. The primary endpoint was MACE (cardiac death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction or revascularization). The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS:values were not associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:may improve cardiac evaluation prior to transplantation.

Background In participants with concomitant chronic coronary disease and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), the effect of treatment strategies on the timing of dialysis initiation is not well characterized. Methods and Results In ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease), 777 participants with advanced CKD and moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to either an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Herein, we compare the proportion of randomized participants with non-dialysis-requiring CKD at baseline (n=362) who initiated dialysis and compare the time to dialysis initiation between invasive versus conservative management arms. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we also sought to identify the effect of invasive versus conservative chronic coronary disease management strategies on dialysis initiation. At a median follow-up of 23 months (25th-75th interquartile range, 14-32 months), dialysis was initiated in 18.9% of participants (36/190) in the invasive strategy and 16.9% of participants (29/172) in the conservative strategy (P=0.22). The median time to dialysis initiation was 6.0 months (interquartile range, 3.0-16.0 months) in the invasive group and 18.2 months (interquartile range, 12.2-25.0 months) in the conservative group (P=0.004), with no difference in procedural acute kidney injury rates between the groups (7.8% versus 5.4%; P=0.26). Baseline clinical factors associated with earlier dialysis initiation were lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (hazard ratio [HR] associated with 5-unit decrease, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.72-2.56]; P<0.001), diabetes (HR, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.28-4.13]; P=0.005), hypertension (HR, 7.97 [95% CI, 1.09-58.21]; P=0.041), and Hispanic ethnicity (HR, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.22-4.47]; P=0.010). Conclusions In participants with non-dialysis-requiring CKD in ISCHEMIA-CKD, randomization to an invasive chronic coronary disease management strategy (relative to a conservative chronic coronary disease management strategy) is associated with an accelerated time to initiation of maintenance dialysis for kidney failure. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

BACKGROUND:The ISCHEMIA trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported. METHODS:We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as cardiovascular (CV), non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death. RESULTS:Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies [2.6% vs. 3.0%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% CI (0.70 - 1.38)], but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy [3.3% vs. 2.1%; HR 1.45 (1.00 - 2.09)]. Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths [0.6% vs. 1.3%; HR 0.48 (0.24 - 0.95)] and more malignancy deaths [2.0% vs. 0.8%; HR 2.11 (1.23 - 3.60)] occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS:In ISCHEMIA, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.

BACKGROUND:Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and oral anticoagulation (OAC) failure may benefit from left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), however, the evidence is scarce. We report outcomes of LAAC in patients with OAC failure compared to those with classic indications of OAC contraindications. METHODS:Prospective registry of LAAC with Amplatzer or WATCHMAN device followed by dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was analyzed (05.2014-11.2019). The study group included patients with OAC failure defined as stroke/TIA/PE/LAA thrombus (n = 39) during OAC, whereas the control group consisted of patients with OAC contraindications (n = 156). Structured follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months was done. RESULTS:-VASc predicted to observed annual stroke/TIA/PE rate was markedly smaller in the study vs control group (14% vs 77%) with 10.3% vs 1.9% stroke/TIA/PE respectively (P = 0.031). The reduction from HAS-BLED predicted to observed annual major nonprocedural bleeding rate was higher (100% vs 7.4%) with 0.0% vs 5.1% major bleedings respectively (P = 0.361). The device-related thrombosis remained similar (13.2% vs 11.3%, P = 0.778). CONCLUSIONS:Patients after LAAC for OAC failure and unremarkable prior bleeding history presented with high residual stroke and low bleeding risks. Therefore concomitant long-term OAC or prolonged DAPT should strongly be considered in this population.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial prespecified an analysis to determine whether accounting for recurrent cardiovascular events in addition to first events modified understanding of the treatment effects. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischaemia on stress testing were randomized to either initial invasive (INV) or initial conservative (CON) management. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or cardiac arrest. The Ghosh-Lin method was used to estimate mean cumulative incidence of total events with death as a competing risk. The 5179 ISCHEMIA patients experienced 670 index events (318 INV, 352 CON) and 203 recurrent events (102 INV, 101 CON). A single primary event was observed in 9.8% of INV and 10.8% of CON patients while ≥2 primary events were observed in 2.5% and 2.8%, respectively. Patients with recurrent events were older; had more frequent hypertension, diabetes, prior MI, or cerebrovascular disease; and had more multivessel CAD. The average number of primary endpoint events per 100 patients over 4 years was 18.2 in INV [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8-20.9] and 19.7 in CON (95% CI 17.5-22.2), difference -1.5 (95% CI -5.0 to 2.0, P = 0.398). Comparable results were obtained when all-cause death was substituted for cardiovascular death and when stroke was added as an event. CONCLUSIONS:In stable CAD patients with moderate or severe myocardial ischaemia enrolled in ISCHEMIA, an initial INV treatment strategy did not prevent either net recurrent events or net total events more effectively than an initial CON strategy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01471522.